Imposing legal liability on corporations for their involvement in human rights violations remains problematic. In the United States, civil liability in such circumstances developed in a series of Alien Tort Statute cases. This evolution came to an abrupt end with the cases of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Jesner v. Arab Bank. As corporate human rights litigation declined in the United States, courts in Europe were presented with their first civil cases, and plaintiffs had some successes. Legal remedies for corporate human rights violations also made it onto the agenda of policy makers at the European Union and national European governments with laws requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence throughout their operations. Against this background, this article investigates the current state and potential future development of corporate human rights litigation in the United States and Europe. It seeks to answer the following questions: Is the United States losing its prominent place as a preferred forum for human rights litigation against corporate defendants, as recent Supreme Court decisions suggest? What made the U.S. courts attractive in the first place? Is Europe taking over this role, and if so, should the United States be concerned about these developments? Are recent doctrinal and legislative trends in Europe transferable to the U.S. legal system and suitable to fill the gaps left by Kiobel and Jesner? Finally, what do these shifts on both sides of the Atlantic mean for victims of human rights violations and their prospects of effectively pursuing their rights?

中文翻译：

---

国际公司人权诉讼的未来：跨大西洋比较

对涉及侵犯人权的公司施加法律责任仍然存在问题。在美国，这种情况下的民事责任在一系列外国人侵权法案件中发展起来。随着 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 和 Jesner v. Arab Bank 的案例，这种演变突然结束。随着美国企业人权诉讼的减少，欧洲法院收到了第一批民事案件，原告取得了一些成功。针对企业侵犯人权的法律补救措施也被列入欧盟和欧洲各国政府政策制定者的议程，法律要求公司在整个运营过程中进行人权尽职调查。在此背景下，本文调查了美国和欧洲公司人权诉讼的现状和潜在的未来发展。它试图回答以下问题：正如最高法院最近的裁决所暗示的那样，美国是否正在失去其作为针对公司被告的人权诉讼的首选论坛的突出地位？首先是什么让美国法院具有吸引力？欧洲是否正在接管这一角色，如果是，美国是否应该关注这些事态发展？欧洲最近的学说和立法趋势是否可以转移到美国法律体系并适合填补 Kiobel 和 Jesner 留下的空白？最后，大西洋两岸的这些变化对侵犯人权行为的受害者及其有效追求权利的前景意味着什么？